|
Post by missouriboy on May 16, 2015 3:46:31 GMT
Here in Central Missouri we are about 1 degree C above our 1981-2010 normal mean spring temperature. However, we're well below normal for precipitation, only about 11 inches of our normal 19 inches for the first 5 months. With two weeks to go in spring, we stand at only 6.5 inches. I have added in the ~1.5 inches we got today. Only 9 years in the 101 since 1914 have recorded less than 7 inches. In the 2012 drought year we were above normal for precipitation at this time, although temperatures had been much warmer.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 16, 2015 8:08:05 GMT
2015 has been warm in my part of the world (nearest large city, Brisbane): Month Min (Avg) Max (Avg ) Jan 22.5 (20.7) 30.5 (29.4) Feb 20.9 (20.6) 29.3 (29.0) Mar 21.3 (19.4) 30.2 (28.0) Apr 17.0 (16.6) 26.2 (26.1) May 13.2 (13.3) 24.9 (23.2) - to date
Averages are 1887 to 1986
Apologies for the formatting
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on May 16, 2015 19:23:37 GMT
Ratty travel a bit in Australia and its been quite cold to my mind. For most people of planet earth they would think its hot but Australia has seen a lot rain and wind and its shown as below average on the various temperature averaging maps. BOM etc.
Are those temperature adjusted or the original temps. Homogenization can be legitimate but conformational bias was deeply entrenched in the old Australian governments.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 16, 2015 19:45:34 GMT
In the Middle of England, average temps for May as stated by met office, 14-18°c, pretty much every day at the low end or less then this. Very dry....
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 16, 2015 20:16:00 GMT
26F forecast for Monday morning. That isn't a frost, that is a freeze! Snowing then as well.
I can say this is not normal.
|
|
|
Post by flearider on May 16, 2015 23:02:55 GMT
hope it warms soon nw uk 7-14c the spring summer fish aren't showing water still way to cool .. even the crab peel is 3 weeks late ..
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 16, 2015 23:33:25 GMT
Ratty travel a bit in Australia and its been quite cold to my mind. For most people of planet earth they would think its hot but Australia has seen a lot rain and wind and its shown as below average on the various temperature averaging maps. BOM etc. Are those temperature adjusted or the original temps. Homogenization can be legitimate but conformational bias was deeply entrenched in the old Australian governments. Nonentropic, the historic Brisbane figures ( Brisbane Regional Office) are from 1887 to 1994 and I have no idea on the "unadjusted or original" question. The Brisbane Regional Office (27.48°S 153.03°E) was renamed Brisbane ( LINK) and its data is available from 1999, a five year gap. Of course, the averages are up in all cases in the 1999-2015 data. Background info: Brisbane city population is approx. 2.2m. As you probably know, Australia's climate records are in an appalling state and I am very much an amateur in all this.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on May 17, 2015 15:04:02 GMT
Earlier I listed 9 questions people ask about my global warming prediction. Here’s my response to 3 of them. I’ll respond to the others in another post or 2.
1) What is the likelihood that aerosols rather than Ocean Currents are responsible for the flat global temperature periods? Backtests of the IPCC models only fit when an aerosol “plug factor” is used to simulate the flat temperatures from 1947 to 1977. There is no real science which supports the “plug factor”. The main rationale was that nothing else could explain the temperature growth pause.
The “plugged” models predicted that temperatures would grow without significant pauses (5+years) for decades to come. The current 15+ year pause confirms that something besides aerosols cause disruptions in global warming. There is only 1 explanation for the current flat period as well as the prior flat period which began 60 years earlier and the one that began 60 years before that one. That’s Ocean Current oscillations.
2) What happens if the 60-year Ocean Current cycle doesn’t continue? The 60-year Ocean Current cycle adds to temperatures for 30 years then subtracts for 30 years. There is little or no net subtraction or addition over the 60-year cycle. There is an underlying global temperature growth from other causes including CO2 which causes a low rate of long term warming.
If the Ocean Current oscillations stopped, the same growth from other causes would be there and the long term growth trend over 60 years would be the same.
If the period of half cycles were reduced from 30 years to 20 years or increased to 40 but still netted to zero, the long term trend would be the same.
3) Could the 30 year global temperature “warm spurts” be significantly larger in the future bringing temperatures more in line with the IPCC model predictions?
There would have to be a cause. Rapid CO2 growth is already reflected in the last spurt. Some people predict methane might grow suddenly. There are no signs of that despite of ice melt in the Arctic. I cannot see anything which would cause temperatures to meet the IPCC predictions. The high end predictions in particular make no sense whatsoever based on historical observations.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on May 21, 2015 8:50:49 GMT
One of my friends in Oklahoma posted this on facebook the other day. I got a chuckle out of it.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 21, 2015 23:30:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 22, 2015 7:29:50 GMT
Finally getting some cooler weather in SE QLD.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on May 23, 2015 21:47:59 GMT
A continuation of the response to 9 questions about my global forecast…… 4) Doesn’t chaos theory mean it’s impossible to make global temperature predictions? Despite “chaos” the global temperatures since 1850 as measured by the annual Hadcrut4 anomalies have remained within the narrow range of plus or minus 0.7C. The major deviations are for the most part due to ENSO (El Ninos and La Ninas) , Ocean Current oscillations, major volcanic eruptions and the general warming trend. After correcting for these variables, global temperatures are pretty predictable despite the chaos. Unfortunately ENSO and volcanoes are unpredictable. But the ENSO and major volcanic eruption effects are temporary and have little effect on the climate in the long term. Therefore, reasonably accurate long term predictions would seem possible based on an analysis of the history of Ocean Currents and the general warming trend with the proviso that these trends continue and there are no “black swan” events. 5) Can anyone believe predictions which are based largely on straight lines? When one examines the global temperature growth spurts with 7-year smoothing, a straight line fits the trends quite well. The flat or down periods between the growth spurts fluctuate because of ENSO and volcanoes. But the trend ispretty clear in each of the periods between the spurts. The 1947-1977 period shows less decline than the prior flat/down period, probably because of the more rapid growth in CO2 emissions. My prediction is that if CO2 growth remains at the recent high levels, temperatures will be flat rather than slightly down during the periods between the spurts. 6) What if satellite-based anomalies are used instead of Hadrut4 for making predictions? I don’t think the satellite temperature history is long enough to provide a basis for predicting future global temperatures. If we compare the satellite temperatures to the surface thermometer-based temperatures during the time when satellite temperatures are available, there is some difference. From 1979, when the satellite anomalies first became available, to 2007, when the warming spurt ended, the anomalies grew at the rate of 0.16C per decade versus 0.19C per decade for Hadcrut4. From 2007 (after the spurt) to the present, the satellite temperatures are also growing slower than the Hadcrut4 temperatures but there’s not enough time yet to draw conclusions as to exactly what to expect over the length of the Ocean Current cool period. More time is needed but early indications are that the satellite-based anomalies might show something like a 0.4C increase between now and the end of the century if present trends continue versus 0.6C for Hadcrut4.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on May 25, 2015 1:45:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jun 4, 2015 1:27:13 GMT
Finishing off the 9 questions concerning my global warming prediction…..
7) If this prediction makes sense why haven’t the climate scientists produced something similar?
That may happen before too long.
Several of the warmists including Trenberth, Hansen and Mann have noted the 60-year ocean current cycle, but they have chosen not to highlight its existence or its significance. They likely will pull these references out later when they are accused of having been totally wrong about the science. But in the meantime they don’t want to stop the “gravy train”.
But Judith Curry is the exception. Her “Stadium Wave” concept clearly lays out the 60-year Ocean Current cycle and she predicts that global temperatures will remain flat for 20 to 30 years. She has also presented her ideas on climate sensitivity to CO2 which she argues is at or below the bottom of the range of the IPCC prediction.
She has the elements of a long term forecast but to my knowledge she hasn’t produced one as yet. My guess is that she will wait until the current El Nino has run its course thereby avoiding the immediate criticisms resulting from “record” temperatures as reported by GISS and others. She then can come out with her forecast as temperatures drop with the end of the El Nino.
When she does make a prediction, it will almost certainly be very close to mine because the elements are pretty much the same….. a 60-year cycle with flat temperatures for 30 years and rising temperatures for 30 years at the historical rate of the warm part of the cycle.
8) What is the correct value for CO2 climate sensitivity?
It’s impossible to determine since the feedback to CO2-induced warming is unknown.
The IPCC admits they cannot make an accurate prediction of CO2 climate sensitivity. Instead they show an extremely wide range of “guesses”.
But based on the historical slow increase in global warming as atmospheric CO2 rapidly increased, CO2 sensitivity is proving to be at or below the low end of the IPCC estimate range. 9) How accurate has my global warming prediction been so far?
I predicted that Hadcrut4 temperatures would remain flat and average 0.52C for the 2007-2037 cool ocean current phase. So far since 2007 the average has been 0.49C or 0.03C lower than my prediction. The current El Nino will bring the average a little closer to my prediction.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jun 6, 2015 19:26:50 GMT
Tom Karl of NOAA recently published a paper denying the global warming “hiatus”. This flies in the face of the satellite temperature data.
Scientists, both warmists and skeptics, agree that the lower troposphere global temperature , the area measured by the satellites, should warm at approximately 1.2 times the rate of the surface. When the satellite anomalies show a hiatus while NOAA surface anomalies show no hiatus, then there’s clearly an inconsistency.
Which temperature sets are more likely to accurately represent global temperatures?
Both surface and satellite anomalies require interpretations and adjustments of the raw data. So the question of scientific bias immediately comes up.
Based on the “ClimateGate” revelations and the public comments of those in charge of the major global surface temperature anomalies (GISS, NOAA, Hadley Center), the surface temperature purveyors are clearly biased towards high rates of global warming.
On the other hand UAH, the original source of satellite temperatures, is managed by Christy and Spencer who clearly are skeptics. But RSS, which in recent years provides a second source for satellite temperatures, has a chief scientist and spokesman, Carl Mears, who is an apparent warmist who uses the term denialist frequently.
For many years RSS produced numbers which showed more rapid warming than UAH and they pointed out problems with the UAH anomalies. Over time UAH has recalculated their anomalies incorporating corrections to problems including those raised by RSS and as it turns out, the most recent Version 6 results are almost identical to the RSS anomalies. So we have something very unusual in Climate Science, the warmists and the skeptics who do their own independent calculations of satellite anomalies agree on something. Global temperatures have been flat for 18 + years.
Some have pointed out that radiosonde (balloon) measurements of the lower troposphere temperatures do not correspond well with to the satellite temperatures, perhaps indicating a problem with the satellite temperatures.
The satellite temperatures are based on uniform global coverage. Radiosonde is for a selected few areas where balloons are released. During a period of significant temperature change such as the Super El Nino in 1988, the satellite anomalies increased significantly while those areas covered by radiosonde did not increase as much. The problem was that the radiosonde temperatures are not from the area where the temperatures increased the most. In the longer term as these oscillations smooth out, the 2 sources agree much better.
One significant point which adds to the credibility of the satellite anomalies is that there are several satellites which produce useable data. Each satellite has its own idiosyncrasies requiring its own set of adjustments. The adjusted results of the varied satellites correlate well and all of these satellites are showing the hiatus and the warmists and the skeptics come up with the same answer, at least as of now.
|
|